consensualchangeableconscious

Contents

1. Key principles ........................................................................................... 2

1.1 Consensual .......................................................................................... 2

1.2 Changeable ....................................................................................... 3

1.3 Conscious ............................................................................................ 3

2. Key areas of constitutionalising ............................................................. 6

2.1 What is the group? ............................................................................. 6

2.2 How are decisions made? ................................................................ 6

2.3 How do we get things done? ........................................................... 7

2.4 What policies do we need? ............................................................. 8

2.5 How can we make the group empowering? ................................ 9

2.6 The importance of group culture................................................... 10

3. Putting it into practice .......................................................................... 11

3.1 The process of ‘constitutionalising’ ................................................ 11

3.2 New members joining ...................................................................... 12

3.3 Regular review of the agreements ................................................ 13

3.4 Building an empowering culture .................................................... 14

4. … there’s always a but ........................................................................ 16

5. Further reading ...................................................................................... 17

This guide was co-written by Seeds for Change and researchers from

the Anarchy Rules research project. For more information, see

seedsforchange.org.uk and anarchyrules.info

1

“According to the constitution...”

“That’s against the rules...”

“Our media policy bans us from...”

“The correct procedure is...”

For many people, the language of constitutions, policies and

procedures is associated with having to play by someone else’s rules.

Social and environmental justice groups often resist the many powers

in the world that are telling us what to do, so creating new rules may

feel like the last thing we want to spend time on. Can rules and

constitutions play a role in creating groups that are liberating and

empowering to be part of?

This guide looks at the questions that need to be answered when we

transform from a series of unconnected individuals into a collective

that can use the words ‘we’ and ‘us’ to describe itself. For example:

What is the purpose of the group and what are its core values? How

are decisions made? How do different tasks get done in the group?

What rules and policies does the group need? How can the group

make sure it is empowering to be part of?

We call the process of answering these questions constitutionalising.

This isn’t necessarily about creating a written constitution. It could

simply mean working out a shared understanding about who the

group is and how it goes about doing things. The decisions a group

makes about these kinds of questions makes a big difference to the

experience of the people involved and to what the group can

achieve. In some ways, the process the group goes through in order

to make those decisions is even more critical. This guide looks at how

we can make constitutionalising an empowering process for groups

to go through.

2

1. Key principles

Broadly speaking, the agreements a group makes will be more

empowering for the people involved if they are consensual,

changeable and conscious.

1.1 Consensual

Often our association with rules are of being told what to do by

people who have authority over us, from the adults who raised us, to

school, to workplaces, benefits agencies, landlords, social norms, the

council, the government... Many of us get very little chance to have

a say in the rules that dictate what we can and can’t do.

On the flip side, a complete free-for-all also leaves many of us with

very little control over what happens to us. If our housemate smoking

inside affects our asthma, most of us would think it was alright to ask

them to go outside. Some people would pre-empt the issue by

talking about it when they move in, along with other issues like bills,

cleaning and shared food.

Consensual agreements are created by the people who are

affected by an issue. To be genuinely consensual, everyone should

be able to shape the agreement, or at the very least have their

needs taken into account. It isn’t always easy to find a solution that

works for everyone, even on a simple question like what day of the

week to have a meeting. But if everyone is part of shaping the

agreement, the answers we reach are more likely to be fair.

The main pitfall of trying to be consensual is that it can take a lot of

time. The energy it takes to create inclusive decisions on every

question affecting how the group works may make it hard to do

anything else. Protracted meetings about policies could lead to the

group losing the people who are most keen to get things done. This

can also exclude the people whose time is most limited, whether

because of health, caring commitments, work or simply because

they have a lot of other things going on in their lives. Many groups

need to prioritise carefully to ensure that important decisions get

3

everyone’s consent without the whole group getting so bogged

down that it grinds to a halt.

1.2 Changeable

If a group sets up agreements or rules that everyone consents to

there is still a need to revise those agreements over time. If new

people join, established members alter their views or circumstances

change the agreements may need to change too in order to reflect

that.

Groups will need to find a balance between the benefits of a stable

group and the benefits of a group reflecting the views of all its

members. Usually, new people are invited to join on the basis of a

clear agreement about what the group is for and what values it

holds. This helps create stability, by limiting the changes a group

needs to consider. An anti-nuclear power group wouldn’t be

expected to become pro-nuclear because someone joined the

group and then said they didn’t agree with what it was all about.

Even if a group doesn’t change its fundamental principles easily, it

can be flexible about how those principles are achieved. For

example, a group which was committed to non-hierarchical

organising might think very carefully indeed before introducing a

system of elected leaders. However, they could experiment with

different methods for reaching decisions with the input of the whole

group. In some circumstances, a group will need to make more

fundamental changes. For example, a single-issue campaign might

expand its scope to take on related issues.

1.3 Conscious

It is common for a group not to be particularly conscious of the

‘decisions’ they make when they are first starting out. For example,

the group might form with a ‘feeling’ of affinity and shared purpose

and never discuss things like their aims, purpose and values. A

feeling of shared purpose is an important glue holding people

together, but it has its limitations. Conscious conversations usually

end up with a clearer shared understanding, which can avoid the

4

bad feeling and wasted time involved in disappointed expectations

and misunderstandings.

The same is true for more practical decisions. Groups can slide into

habits which shape how the group works without consciously making

agreements. For example, if the same person sends out emails and

manages social media for a group over a period of time, they may

in effect become the ‘Communications Officer’ without the group

deciding they want one person to do this role. Having a conscious

conversation about how to organise communications mean it’s

possible to consider the implications of different options and choose

the one that works best.

Conscious agreements are also easier to communicate to the rest of

the world and to new members. This can help the stability of the

group as well. In the case of the ‘Communications Officer’ example,

all the conversations about how the role works will be useful notes

and guidance if someone else takes over the job.

Less conscious decision making can tend to favour the people who

are already most empowered in a group. For example, someone

who has a lot of confidence is most likely to explain how they think

the group works to new people who come. Even if other people

had different ideas that person’s explanations may start to define

how the group works.

However, conscious and explicit decision making can also favour the

people who are already most empowered. These people may be

more likely to put forward their views, more likely to fight if their ideas

are opposed and more likely to assume that their suggestion was

agreed if no-one spoke against it. When these suggestions are

written down as policy, or passed on to new people when they join,

then they look like the group consensus, even if not everyone was

happy with them.

Conscious conversations about policy or group aims require extra

care in order to be accessible. More people are likely to respond to

‘Shall I check the group email account?’, compared to ‘What

5

guidelines do we need for the ‘Communications Officer’ role?’ The

second question is harder for people to input on if they don’t have a

lot of experience in groups. Plus, this second question is more

abstract, which might be more difficult for some people than others.

Using concrete examples and everyday language, rather than

abstract and bureaucratic terms, can help a wider range of people

participate. This in turn means the agreements are shaped by more

members of the group, and in a more genuinely consensual way.

6

2. Key areas of constitutionalising

Exactly what questions a group needs to work out will depend on

their context. For example, in a workers’ co-op that provides its

members with a wage it will be important to work out how to come

to decisions that everyone finds fair. In this scenario, the decisions

will have a fundamental impact on people’s livelihoods. In a

community bring-and-share meal there may be a lot less decision

making to do and the decisions themselves will affect people a lot

less. In this case, the group may never agree a decision-making

method and simply have an informal chat at the end of the meal if

an issue comes up, for example, when to have the next meal.

However, these five areas cover the bases for most groups:

2.1 What is the group?

Sample questions: What is the purpose and aims of the group?

What principles and values do we share? What do we need to

do to achieve our aims? Who can join the group?

These questions are at the foundations of any group. However, it is

very common for a new group to dive into ‘doing stuff’ without

taking time to think about these questions. For example, if

neighbours get together to fight gentrification in their area, they

might assume that the reasons were obvious. But they could get a

much clearer picture of where everyone is at by asking questions

with fairly concrete answers like ‘What are examples of the things we

want to stop?’, ‘What impacts will these things have, and which ones

are we worried about?’ This conversation would give a much clearer

picture of how much people had in common, and form the basis for

setting out the purpose and values of the group.

2.2 How are decisions made?

Sample questions: How does the group make decisions (e.g.

by consensus, by voting)? Who needs to be involved in what

kind of decisions? What decisions need to be made at regular

7

meetings and what can be decided outside of those

meetings?

Decision making is critical to how a group puts its values in practice.

For example, a network that exists to support local groups affected

by the same issues might have the empowerment of those local

groups as one of its core aims. It would be contradictory to then

have a top down decision-making structure, where a central

committee in the network told the local groups what to do. Instead,

important decisions in the network might be made by

representatives or delegates of all the local groups coming together

a few times a year. The network might also decide that each local

group has complete autonomy to do what they want, provided that

no-one uses the network’s name to do things that go against core

shared policies.

See Seeds for Change resources for more on decision making:

https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/resources

2.3 How do we get things done?

Sample questions: How often do we meet? Are there regular

social events? How do we communicate between ourselves

outside of meetings? How do we communicate with those not

part of the group? Are sub-groups or individuals responsible for

certain tasks?

The practices a group sets up to get things done could range from a

monthly meeting, to having nominated signatories on the bank

account, to holding a regular stall in town on Saturdays. It could also

include how the group socialises – having a bring-and-share meal to

start each meeting or going on trips to national gatherings of people

interested in the same issues.

The answers to these questions have a big impact on the experience

of being part of the group, and how effectively it gets things done.

Talking about how to organise can help a group find systems that

are appropriate for their purpose and for the people involved. For

example, many groups default to deciding everything in whole

8

group meetings and splitting up tasks in an ad hoc way because it

seems more egalitarian, when a well thought through working-group

system – with small sub-groups working on certain tasks – could in

some ways be equally democratic and more efficient. Groups also

often default into socialising in the pub after meetings, which could

exclude people who don’t drink alcohol perhaps for religious or

other reasons, and don’t think about more inclusive ways of getting

to know one another as people. Ideally, group practices should

reflect their aims and principles. For example, if a co-op aims to

promote co-operation, in line with the core co-operative principles, it

might join regional and national co-operative networks and work

collectively to strengthen the whole movement.

2.4 What policies do we need?

Sample questions: How will we respond if someone makes a

complaint to the group? Can we introduce rules that make the

group safer to be in, e.g. a commitment to supporting anyone

who feels harassed or bullied? Is there a system that would

make it harder for someone to steal group funds?

A policy doesn’t need to be a five page document in carefully

crafted legalese. It could be include unwritten rules, like not letting

dogs use the allotment as a toilet. In other situations it is important to

have written policies that are worded carefully and to make sure

everyone knows about them. Big public events often require that

everyone reads and agrees to the safer spaces policy before

coming in. Co-ops will often have a ‘Grievance and Disciplinary

Policy’ that makes clear what behaviours are totally unacceptable

and what processes should be in place before a member is asked to

leave.

This area is particularly sensitive because there is a high risk that

people experience rules and policies as restrictive or even

oppressive. It is also hard to make a rule which fits all situations and

recognises everyone’s needs. It can help if people recognise that a

policy isn’t usually chosen because it is the only right way to do

things, just a way that everyone can agree on. For example, there

9

are many systems for sharing the cleaning in a communal house,

and many different ideas about what it means to be clean enough.

Coming to basic agreements about the housework can ease a lot of

tension, especially if the agreements are reviewed when new

people join.

2.5 How can we make the group empowering?

Sample questions: Are there particular groups of people who

are likely to be disproportionately empowered or

disempowered in the group? Can we introduce ‘checks and

balances’ to make it harder for individuals or sub-groups to gain

too much influence? What can we do to make it easier for

people who are currently marginalised to take on roles and

help shape the group?

To make empowerment a reality, it needs to inform all the other

areas involved in ‘constitutionalising’. Making decision making as

democratic as possible is an obvious example. Other examples are

creating systems to reduce the barriers to people getting involved,

like paying baby-sitters so single parents can attend more easily, or

choosing a venue that is as widely accessible as possible. Similarly,

maximising empowerment can shape the aims of the group. For

example, a trade union could prioritise issues affecting the lowest

paid and most precarious workers.

The priorities of each group will depend on their situation and

members, so it is useful to start by thinking through any dynamics that

are specific to your context. If a homeless action group includes

‘allies’ who are securely housed there will need to be careful

thought about potential power dynamics between them and the

homeless people in the group. For example, they could think

carefully about who speaks for the group in public, who has access

to group resources and whose views shape decision making most.

Similarly, in a project with a big budget, the finance team could

easily end up with more than their fair influence over decision

making. Steps to ensure everyone has a basic understanding of the

10

financial situation could help balance that power out (and help the

whole group make better decisions overall).

There are practical tips on maximising empowerment at the end of

this guide.

2.6 The importance of group culture

The success of all these agreements depends as much on the group

culture as on what the agreements actually are. The culture is the

norms, attitudes and behaviours of the group. It is partly shaped by

the rules a group makes, but not exclusively. For example, a group

might introduce a grievance and conflict policy to encourage group

members to raise issues with the whole group or the people

concerned rather than complaining to their friends or simply leaving.

This policy will only work if people are prepared to raise issues and

they receive a constructive response when they do. In other words,

it will only work if the group culture supports the policy.

We cannot simply decide what culture we want to have. But it is not

totally beyond our collective control either. Individuals can help

build a culture that is in line with the agreements they have made. In

the case of the conflict policy, individuals could model the process

with a minor issue, make an effort to ensure all sides are supported

when a conflict does come up and ask direct questions if someone

seems to be unhappy. The group can choose practices which help

build the culture they want. For example, a ‘niggles and

appreciations’ session as a standard item in a meeting or regular

debriefs of how it is to work together can help build a culture that is

more open and accepting about conflict.

11

3. Putting it into practice

The process of creating and maintaining empowering agreements

and rules comes with some challenges. All the general tips on how

to run effective and participatory meetings apply – see the Seeds for

Change Consensus and Facilitation guides. Here, we’ve fleshed out

some of the specific challenges of constitutionalising and included

some suggestions for how to deal with them.

3.1 The process of ‘constitutionalising’

If rule-making is to be based on consent, the process of making and

reviewing the rules and agreements needs to be genuinely

participatory. This can be challenging in a number of ways: it takes

time; sometimes talking a lot about how to do things is off-putting for

task-focused people who want to get things done; and abstract

conversations can be alienating.

Here are some concrete ideas for making the process of group

forming as genuinely inclusive as possible, bearing in mind these

challenges:

Take it one step at a time. Hold meetings which combine a

couple of practical agenda items with one or two questions

about how you want the group to work. This will help task-

focused people stay engaged in the group.

Make the discussions as context-based as possible so there are more

people who engage with the need to discuss the questions. For

example, ‘Let’s have a social media presence’ could be combined

with ‘What shall we put in the ‘about us’ section’ (e.g. What is the

group? What are our principles?)

Use concrete details (a) to make the discussion more accessible and

(b) to check you aren’t talking at cross-purposes. For example,

when you say the community shop will promote ‘local’ food do you

mean food from a 10 mile radius or a 100 mile radius?

12

If the group doesn’t address every question at the very beginning,

look for opportunities later. More people are likely to engage in

reviewing how things work once something has gone wrong.

Alternatively, schedule in discussions that you run out of time for in

the beginning.

Prioritise and split-up tasks. It may be there are some things people

can consent to, even if they weren’t involved in drawing them up.

For example, small groups could take on the task of writing one

policy each, and then the whole group could suggest any

fundamental changes. By contrast, everyone might want to be

involved together in a question like ‘What’s the purpose of the

group?’.

3.2 New members joining

If new people join after all the agreements about the group have

already been made, then there is usually much less scope for them

to input into what those decisions should be. This poses some risks.

The new people may experience those agreements as rules imposed

from the outside and either feel resentful or simply ignore them

because they never got a chance to shape them. Sometimes new

members never find out about previous agreements or the reasons

for them which can lead to carefully thought through systems sliding

into disuse. Or the new person is only told when they’ve done

something wrong, which is disempowering.

Bearing these challenges in mind here are a few techniques groups

can use to integrate new members:

Key points can be explained at the first meeting when new

people come. Whenever possible this can include an

explanation of why the group came up with the agreement in

the first place. For example: ‘We use consensus decision

making, which means we discuss each item till we come up

with a way forward that everyone can consent to. We believe

that this shows the most respect for each person involved and

encourages us all into a co-operative mindset.’ Giving reasons

13

can help new people understand and respect the group’s

agreements. New people can also be invited to give

feedback on how the agreements work for them and told if

there is the possibility of changing them.

More formal groups such as workers or housing co-ops often have an

induction process and probation period to work out whether the

new person and the co-op are right for each other. Of course, in this

situation there is a massive power imbalance between the

established members (who already have a secure job/home) and

the new member who is dependent on the others deciding whether

they are in or out. The relationship will be a little more balanced if

the new member knows any criteria they are being judged by, how

the decisions will be made and where they can go for support.

In all groups, it is good to make sure that new members know how

they can suggest changes to the ways the group operates. As well

as simply explaining the processes (e.g. ‘This is how to put something

on the agenda’), try inviting feedback. For example: ‘Here are all

the things we do to try to make our events accessible, do you have

any tips to improve it?’; or ‘Let’s take 10 minutes at the end of the

meeting to hear how it worked for everyone. It’d be especially good

to hear from people who’ve joined more recently because you’ll be

able to see everything with fresh eyes.’

3.3 Regular review of the agreements

The agreements a group makes in the first few weeks of getting

together might become less appropriate as the circumstances

change and new members join. Therefore, for practical reasons as

well as democratic ones, everything about a group needs to be

open to review. At the same time, there are benefits to stability and

groups protecting the core of what they are about.

Change is a common area of conflict in groups, because the

process can be draining and/or because established members are

resistant.

14

Respect that people sometimes have strong feelings about

change on all sides. Take time to understand the reasons why

a policy was originally made, as well as why people want to

change it.

Instead of assuming that the existing agreement stays until everyone

is ready to change it, try looking for new solutions which work for

everyone. This might be neither the suggested change nor the old

system but something else entirely.

Some people will find it easier to review agreements in answer to a

broad question like ‘How well is this group working for you’. This

means they can pick the bits that are most relevant to discuss.

Alternatively, try having a rotation of areas to review as part of

regular group meetings. This could mean that different topics are

covered more systematically and might get better attendance than

a ‘let’s review our policies’ meeting.

3.4 Building an empowering culture

Groups usually need to work on building a culture that puts their

values into practice. We live in a society where power is very

unevenly distributed, and power imbalances in our groups can be

deeply entrenched. Prioritising empowerment in the

constitutionalising process is a good start, here are a few ideas

groups have tried to build a more empowering culture:

Sometime unhealthy power dynamics can shift a bit simply by

varying the contexts in which group members interact. Not

everyone thrives in meetings. Seeing other sides of each other

can build more rounded relationships which make the meetings

healthier. Try getting together to do the chores, paint a

banner, construct an access ramp for the office or go to a self-

defence class. Or do things just for the sake of socialising

together. As with many things, variety is key because we all

have very different comfort zones.

15

Changes in the distribution of the workload in the group may help

more people feel actively involved and able to shape the group. Try

regular skill-shares and buddying to make it easier for people to take

on new roles; having several people involved in every influential role

so no one person takes over or becomes indispensable; or rotas and

jobs lists to rotate unpopular tasks.

Talking about power directly can help to identify issues, build

understanding and try out new ways of working. These

conversations can be uncomfortable for everyone, but there is a risk

of the biggest emotional burden falling on the people who are

already marginalised. People who are affected by similar issues can

get together to share perspectives on how the group affects them

and support each other through the process of raising issues.

People who are already empowered in the group need to be ready

to listen and try to understand feedback they are given. Building

supportive but challenging relationships with people in a similar

position can help you look after yourself without making things any

harder for the person who brought the issue up with you. When

looking for support from people who are also empowered, be

careful not to reinforce each others’ defensiveness!

Tools that groups use to shift dynamics include the practice of

‘calling out’ which involves challenging oppressive behaviour.

‘Calling in’ delivers this same challenge in a supportive way. ‘Calling

in’ has the benefit that the person being challenged may find it

easier to hear and change their behaviour. A potential drawback is

that if a group encourages ‘calling in’ it can give the message that

raising issues is only acceptable if it is done politely. It is important

that people are listened to when they bring things up which directly

affect them – even if other people don’t like the way they say it.

Politeness shouldn’t be the most important thing in these

conversations. People should feel able to raise issues and should be

listened to even if they can’t do so without being impolite. Another

tool is ‘Step Up, Step Back’, which encourages people to reflect on

the space they are taking up in the group and either put themselves

forward more or take a step back accordingly. This could also

16

involve encouraging other people to take a step back if self-

reflection isn’t working.

4. … there’s always a but

Setting up and maintaining a group will always be an experiment,

and one that changes all the time as people join and leave and the

external circumstances shift. One of the best tools a group has is the

willingness to reflect on how things are going and try out new ideas

to address issues.

17

5. Further reading

Anarchy in the USA: five years on, the legacy of Occupy Wall Street

and what it can teach us in the Age of Trump

https://theconversation.com/anarchy-in-the-usa-five-years-on-

the-legacy-of-occupy-wall-street-and-what-it-can-teach-us-in-

the-age-of-trump-68452

Iceland’s crowd-sourced constitution: hope for disillusioned voters

everywhere

https://theconversation.com/icelands-crowd-sourced-

constitution-hope-for-disillusioned-voters-everywhere-67803

A consensus handbook. Co-operative decision-making for activists,

co-ops and communities

https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/handbookweb.pdf

Effective groups. A guide to successful group organising, from

starting up groups to keeping them going

https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/effectivegroups.pdf

Facilitating meetings

https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/facilitationmeeting.pdf

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Seeds for Change Lancaster Co-Operative Ltd. and Loughborough

University